Jim Henley recently pronounced this Anne Applebaum piece “the stupidest column anyone has ever written for any venue.” Given how maddening I found Applebaum’s column, I wasn’t prepared to argue with Henley’s conclusion.
However, that was before I read Jeff Jacoby’s latest in yesterday’s Boston Globe. Jacoby, the Globe’s worst columnist, makes the least persuasive argument I’ve ever seen in a major American newspaper.
Did you hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn’t simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.” Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning,” he determined, it means 3988 BC.
Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely “intelligent design” but out-and-out divine creation. This applicant’s writings on astronomy, for example, include these thoughts on the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being … He governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done.”
Hire somebody with such views to teach physics? At a Baptist junior college deep in the Bible Belt, maybe, but the faculty would erupt if you tried it just about anywhere else.
Then Jacoby hits us with his clever little punch-line: he’s describing Isaac Newton, who Cambridge named Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in 1668.
Jacoby’s point seems to be that Newton celebrated an intersection between “religious inquiry and scientific investigation,” so we should do the same.
Maybe, maybe not, but making the point by highlighting Newton’s mistaken theological beliefs is quite silly.
Jacoby thinks he’s being a shrewd observer. Cambridge, he says, wouldn’t allow a fundamentalist who interprets the Bible literally and tries to ascertain scriptural prophecies to join the science faculty. But if they turned such a person down now, they’d miss out on a scholar for the ages like Newton.
Except this is completely wrong. Newton embraced these beliefs in the 17th century. Were he alive today, and able to see the advances of the scientific canon over the last four centuries, he obviously wouldn’t maintain the same beliefs. Jacoby, however, seems to miss the point of scientific inquiry, arguing that a genius who was wrong in 1668 necessarily means that fundamentalist beliefs might hold credence today.
James Kirchick’s take on the column was spot-on.
Jacoby claims Newton as one of his own, historically appropriating Newton for his contemporary anti-evolution agenda, thus besmirching one of the greatest minds in Western history. He writes that it was “axiomatic that religious inquiry and scientific investigation complemented each other.” Axiomatic, indeed, in an age when denying the existence of God brought upon excommunication and other forms of state repression.
Not for nothing did John Maynard Keynes remark, upon examining Newton’s large collection of papers relating to alchemy, that “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians…” Indeed, the logical conclusion of Jacoby’s argument is that university physics departments should teach students how to convert lead into gold.
Just as Abraham Lincoln was no proponent of racial equality, Newton was a man of his time. Both men deserve credit and praise for the peerless contributions they made in their day. Exalting the primitive (and no doubt once-commonly held) beliefs of a man who lived 400 years ago indicates Jacoby’s bias towards the holds of 17th century superstition as opposed to 21st century reason.
What do you think, Jim Henley, “stupidest column anyone has ever written for any venue”?